This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

Um, Mr. Clihor, if you and W.I.Thomas are the same person, that raises interesting questions of objectivity. I'm not implying anything, but I thought you might like to know. Ed Poor

Contrary to my initial suspicion, it appears from my research that W.I.Thomas is in fact an author that at least a few academics take seriously, and whose ideas (including "Situational Dynamics") are fairly well known, so it seems that they are worth mention in an encyclopedia. Of course, that doesn't rule out the possibility that Mr. Clihor is in fact him, but it makes it less likely. --LDC

LDC, if you had taken even a minute to complete a "google" search you would have found dozens and dozens of articles about W.I. Thomas. Or, if you had scanned the fields of Sociology or Social Psychology you would have stumbled across his name in short order. I'm not sure what LDC stands for, but I doubt it is the entirety of a name. H.W. Clihor likewise is a pen name, used in some of my writings. A pen name doesn't diminish the person behind the name. Further, no proffer of conceit or deceit has been attempted here. My name is Mike Thomas. (No relation to the above.) Ed has known this for a full day. I noticed that you don't have a link to which others might engage your mind in discourse. That is regrettable. However, the social effects of situational dynamics are a an accepted core of many areas of studies arising out of W.I. Thomas germinal work. Look deeper, you'll see that I am right. -- Thanks, Mike.

That's exactly what I did do (search Google). Why do think otherwise? I am Lee Daniel Crocker; I usually abbreviate that, but I try to leave it linkable at least once per page. I welcome discourse of any kind--indeed, I have my own Wiki. My "initial reaction" to your text was nothing but that--a reaction to patterns of posting that resembled those of self-promoting researchers. I stand corrected.

An honest soul isn't averse to apology. I too must admit that I was taken a'back by abruptness when, given the vagaries of today's scholastic environs you might be doing a grand service editing out those with agendas. Therefore, I apologize for not recognizing that fact earlier. Thanks for acceptance of the W.I. Thomas information, I hope more stalwart scholars of him might expand upon it over the coming days. Again, thanks, - Mike Thomas aka H.W. Clihor.

This is a note to the primary author of the page. I'm curious about how open you may be to revisions. You seem to have relied heavily on the Coser and Janowitz accounts of Thomas's life. They are unreliable. If you would like, I would be happy to discuss several of existing pieces of more recent research as well as the more problematic material in the J and C accounts.

My social theory professor claims Thomas is linked with the invention of dimples on the golf ball, but did not have the first patent for it. Any truth to this or is he blowing steam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.11.122 (talk) 05:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The LC authority file lists him as William Isaac Thomas. WorldCat Identities The name as it appeared on his best known book ,The Polish Peasant, is likewise William Isaac Thomas, as in the original publication of 1918. If we abbreviate in our usual fashion, it would be William I. Thomas. The justification W. I, Thomas makes very little sense to me, as I think it was used only on publication such as journals in the early 20th century when names were always abbreviated to initials. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)